Unconventional?
 

I'd be curious on your reaction to a portrait somewhat outside the traditional style. The ideal viewing distance of the original is about 10 feet, where all stylized areas resolve.

David,

Here's the closeup on your painting. From a layman's point of view, I like the painting. I think I pointed that out when I saw your pages that this was one I particulary liked.

I dont have any problem with the stylized treatment. My only problem with it is that my eyes are drawn down into the bright intricate folds of the shirt, rather than the subjects face. Those highlights far outweigh the highlights in the face. If more of the shirt were in the mid-tone range, I think it would help draw the viewers eye back up to the face.

Brian, you're right. I fell victim to the old saw that "the last area painted is often the first area noticed". I debated toning down the shirt, but with the somber background I felt I'd lose cohesion and end up with a "spotlight" for a face. (Do you think there's a market for portraits of shirts? ; )

The tones ARE somewhat more satisfying in the original, and the shirt not nearly so prominent. Between my fumbling with the original scan, and than following Cynthia's kind attention (correcting most of my attempts at balance & contrast), the values have changed.

Terrific treatment, David. Unconventional (perhaps), but definitely artistic ('musical'), strong. Toning down shirt folds might water down strength. My concern is with the hand, its form compromised by the dark, to where it doesn't read with enough integrity as a full, healthy hand. We have to 'perceptually assume' (in my view), in most cases not a good thing to ask from the eye/brain.

Thanks for the kind words, John.

It's funny, I left that hand indistinct on purpose. I thought heightening the detail would draw attention away from the center of interest.

You think I should model it more? I'm afraid to end up with a portrait of a face AND a hand. I trust your instincts, though. I appreciate the tip!

Unconventional?
 

David,
I wanted you to know how much I admire this painting. Although I paint in a more traditional style myself, I really find this technique appealing. I agree with what John said about the hand, however I think my brain accepted it as being there.....I really just wanted to reach out and touch the soft material of the shirt. (Luckily, the guy in the painting seems to be looking away, so maybe he won't notice!) :sunnysmil

Hi David,
I don't find it unconventional at all. I think it's a great painting and it makes me think. I like the fact that there are aspects about the painting that aren't so easy to accept. It gives the painting more depth and mystery! I love the background. :thumbsup:

Is the subject the author Shelby Foote?
I like the style of this!

Yes!
 

Thanks for recognizing him, Darla. It is indeed Shelby Foote.

I guess my experiment in style held true if the likeness still comes through. This style (which I like to think "pre-squints" for the viewer) stills holds my interest, but the painting I hope to complete over Christmas will be more main-stream. I have to build that magical 8-10 paintings suitable for a presentation portfolio! Times a wasting ....

Nice light. I like it.

Hi David,

I have a suggestion concerning his left arm. It bothers me not knowing if its lying across his lap, or at his side. Perhaps just a hint of a value change indicating the position. Otherwise, I love the mood.
:thumbsup:

Hi, Stanka.

I see your point. I'll trot out the old stand-by; the original is less conflicted.

You're right though, the shirt & sleeve (his arm is on his lap) are too close in value. The puzzle is less when seen in RL (real life) as his wrist and part of his left hand is visible in the shadow cast by the arm of his chair. The shirt sleeve would have to be somewhat darker then the shirt-front, and I'm not convinced how that would work. I suppose I could also shadow the shirt above the sleeve too ...

Regards,
Dave